Hi Bro. Parrish,
Quote:
|
I have you pinned to the door on this. You think the AV text contains errors.
|
Wow, thanks for the detective work.
Quote:
|
you are in denial of the very essence of Biblical authority
|
No, actually it is because I accept Biblical authority that I reject new man-made doctrines
about the Bible.
Quote:
|
you have been challenged to find errors in ours, but you have avoided all of this
|
I have repeatedly asked for what would constitute proof, and if that proof would be consistently applied. I've played your game many times in the past, and know that if we don't establish the rules up front, you'll change the rules as we go.
Do you really understand why I "deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"? For the exact same reason I "'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 77 books as having ever existed and certainly not now" and I "deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 111 books as having ever existed and certainly not now", or any other number you want to put in there. The Bible doesn't name the books it should contain, therefore,
by definition, any list is extra-Biblical. I
accept the 66-book canon, but to claim "66-books" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory. Similarly, I deny the claim the KJV is the textually inerrant word of God
for the same reason I deny the Geneva, or the Vulgate, or (insert any specific translation here) is the textually inerrant word of God. The Bible doesn't name the KJV as being textually inerrant, therefore,
by definition, the claim is extra-Biblical. I
accept the KJV as authoritative, but to claim "KJV-onlyism" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory. Insult me all you want, but these facts still remains no matter how much you ignore it.